Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: 286,386sx,386? Message-ID: <110200011@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 6 Oct 89 09:41:48 GMT Lines: 21 Nf-ID: #R: I would say the SX is a bad deal. It is not as fast at DOS as a 286, >or as fast for UNIX or OS/386 as a real 386. It is slightly cheaper than >a 386 (and that's probably a marketing decision, I bet it costs more to >build) and not as good as either the 386DX or 286 in terms of >price/performance. Not really such a bad deal for some people. IF you intend to run 386 software, and you don't need speed, you need it. There are several 386-only commercial packages out now. Also, there are programs that don't REQUIRE a 386, but do use 386 instructions if they are there (well, there is only one I know about, my TeX screen previewer), and astounding gains are sometimes achieved (a 386SX runs 40% faster than a similar clock speed 286). A couple of people around here have bought them just for that one program, or for the upcoming 386-only AutoCad vaporware. The 386SX REALLY should have been a plug-in replacement for the 286! Doug McDonald